...Voronwë has seen the actual agreement between Zaentz and Miramax, all rights for which were subsequently assigned to New Line, and reported here that the agreement allows New Line / Warners to make as many films as they'd like.

So, yes, there has been speculation here about whether, after The Hobbit was complete, Warners would make a further film or films, even without the participation of Jackson or del Toro. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> We're discussing The Silmarillion in the Reading Room, Aug. 9 - Mar 7. Please join the conversation!

Theoretically, NL/Warners can legally make as many movies as they like, from LotR and TH. They have given Jackson et al. tentative approval for two Hobbit movies (which is consistent with his saying he can only make two), subject to getting an approved script and budget, etc.

Any talk about further movies here is rank speculation, though, as none of them has said any such thing. Given the predilection of the studios to milk franchises for all they're worth, it's a good bet that if TH 1 & 2 are a roaring success, someone will look into it. The Rohirrim, by Peter Xavier Price Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'

...in the MTV clip, Jackson says he believes Warners only has the right to produce two films, not three or more. Either Jackson is incorrect, or Voronwë is, in his reading of the Zaentz-Miramax agreement that was suborned to New Line. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> We're discussing The Silmarillion in the Reading Room, Aug. 9 - Mar 7. Please join the conversation!

Actually, it is pretty mind-numbing, but still I don't see how it can be interpreted in any way but that as long as the option-holder makes films based on LOTR and/or The Hobbit, they automatically get an option for a licence to make another film. I suppose it is possible that there is some other agreement between Zaentz and New Line that they did not include in support of the motion that limits the number of films that they can make to two, but I can't think of any reason why they would do that and say that they were producing all of the agreements that showed how they obtained the rights to make the films.

I think that it is far more likely that Jackson simply spoke off the top of his head, and doesn't really know what the truth of the matter is. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but I don't mean any disrespect by saying it. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

I guess many people are still hoping there will be eventually a third Hobbitmovie,
[In reply to]

Can't Post

But after this news, it seems highly unlikely it will ever happen. However, as I've said earlier, if they ever intend to shoot a third movie, they must do it shortly after the two Hobbitmovies, because otherwise it indeed will never happen anymore, because the actors that played in the LoTR- trilogy are aging, and getting to old if they wait another five years or so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCUzA6KMEw http://www.ladyofrohan.com/funeralsong.wav

at first I was upset we wouldn't get "Bridge film material" like the Rise of Aragorn stuff from the Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but his subsequent explanations of what happened make complete sense:

When they actually sat down and "broke" The Hobbit into a script, it was kind of long for one movie

Further, they wanted to put in all of the backstory stuff, not Tale of Aragorn and Arwen, but things like the assault by the White Council on the Necromancer at Dol Guldur which should logically take place *during* the run time of The Hobbit.

So on top of finding it difficult to make the Hobbit without cutting stuff out...much LESS putting in the wanted Necromancer scenes without cutting stuff out....they realized it would be "oh god, you cut out entire scenes from the Lord of the Rings trilogy!" all over again

so they ultimately realized they wanted to film it as "The Hobbit" WITH the extra scenes, spread across two movies

THIS way, *no* scenes will be cut out AT ALL, every single blessed scene will be in there

My one complaint is that "the selling point of The Hobbit was that you can read it/watch it in one sitting and reach "The End" as opposed to complaints about FOTR and TTT, and indeed ROTK, that they weren't a single "movie" in one sitting (they weren't TRYING to be)

...but then again, the FOTR Extended Edition DVD really changed our ideas about how "DVDs" and even "adaptations" run; by TTT and definitely by ROTK, the effect of "oh my god they left stuff out!" in theaters didn't bother me because I knew it would be in the Extended Edition DVD: further, at home you can sort of just marathon TTT and ROTK together in one sitting....

....so to be honest, we're all going to get the Extended Edition DVDs and just watch both movies back to back

...and to be honest I'm hesitant that "The Tale of Aragorn and Arwen" is filmable much less marketable as one movie (I envisioned it as a series of Vignettes ranging from 10 minutes for short stories, to 30-40 minutes for Aragorn, then 20 minutes for like "The War of the Dwarves and Orcs" etc.)

So I increasingly think this is the best idea and fully agree with Jackson, as:

1- NOTHING will get cut for time now 2-they also have time to fit in ALL of the extra background material

the real question is "where to break the film"?

I seriously think Lake-town, Smaug, and the Battle of Five Armies will be in film 2 ; heck the Battle of Five Armies and everything post-Smaug could take up an hour as it is.

***I think a good place to break it might be when the Elves capture the Dwarves; the final "climactic battle" in movie 1 is the Mirkwood spiders, they escape, then get caught by the Elves.

Then Movie 2 is them escaping from the Elves as the opening fight/action scene act (well, escape)....then Dale/Smaug takes up half of what's left, and Battle of Five Armeis takes up the other half (Smaug will "be in movie 1" during Thorin's flashback where he's explaining how the Lonely Mountain fell to Smaug in the first place)

I for one think that two movies and that much more material shot (as opposed to the original plan of a single Hobbit movie and a bridge movie) inevitably increases the chances of non-canon Hobbit scenes. (since this is the same writing team they used for LOTR, I do not coubt there will be non-canon scenes a plenty)

It will look cool to see Necromancer and the White Council, for example, but it won't be 100% Hobbit and it won't be the Hobbit you might expect based purely on the book.

"non-canon" were scenes that simply have no equivalent to the book and indeed could not happen in the books (i.e. Arwen's ride to the ford in FOTR was a fabrication)

....but just because something isn't *literally shot for shot using the transcript of the book as a script* doesn't mean it's "not a canon scene"; certain scenes are combinations of other scenes from the books or condensations, but that doesn't mean they're "purely from the movie" -- i.e. Gandalf's scene with Aragorn in TTT where he basically sums up the plot of the movie COULD have and probably "DID" happen, it just wasn't written about.

There's things the books "allude" to that are happening "off screen" that might make sense to show "on screen" in a film. we've already been over this since the days of FOTR, the initial shock of "okay, some scenes don't play out beat for beat as they did in the book, but they still were clearly based on the book"

So do you think all the songs from Tolkien's Hobbit will be heard in the films? <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> We're discussing The Silmarillion in the Reading Room, Aug. 9 - Mar 7. Please join the conversation!

I could definitely do without the Elves' songs in Rivendell, thank you very much. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Not to mention, of course, that the lyrics could not be 100% by-the-text- I'm reading the book to my little sister, and I was a little flabbergasted to see the archiac word for "wood", which now is considered a rather bad word. Oh, words, your evolution continues to astound me...

Well, if anything, a third film won't be filmed with these two
[In reply to]

Can't Post

... unless the studio does some serious interference. GDT and PJ and co are planning to give scripts only for two films to be green-lit, which should come hopefully by the end of this month if things stay on schedule from what PJ mentioned at the Comic Con.

If a separate, third 'bridge' film comes up with the studio after these two films are filmed, I am not sure if either GDT or PJ would want to be involved.

I believe that is really what PJ is saying, between the lines
[In reply to]

Can't Post

Basically, that he is not interested in being involved in a bridge film, after these two are finished.

IIRC, GdT said much the same thing, but more directly.

Of course, that would necessarily stop New Line/Warners from trying to proceed with a bridge film with some other filmmakers, if in fact I am correctly interpreting the agreement (and, of course, if those rights aren't stripped from them as a result of the lawsuit!). I think it would be a foolish thing to do, but the road through Hollywood is paved with foolish things, many of which still made a ton of money. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

If what you're saying is true, that PJ and GdT aren't interested to make a third movie, even if they're allowed to shoot it,
[In reply to]

Can't Post

what could be the reason? Could it be because the project is too time consuming? Maybe they've had enough of Middle-Earth after shooting two movies? Is it because they want to focus on other movieprojects, or spend more time with their families after such a big project? Or could it be because they might think that the fans will become tired of Middle-Earth when they're starting to shoot one more movie? Speaking for myself, I can't get enough of Middle-Earth, and I think there will be many more people that have the same feeling about a third movie. Or could it be a combination of all these reasons? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCUzA6KMEw http://www.ladyofrohan.com/funeralsong.wav

I think they probably realize that it would be very difficult to make a so-called bridge film that both told a coherent story and was significantly true to Tolkien. I suspect, though of course they will never admit it, that this is the reason why they changed from the plan to make one Hobbit film and one bridge film in the first place. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

Glad thats settled 'once and for all'. - or will it be? It seems that MTV and others keep going on questioning about 'the Bridge Movie' - it has been asked so many times. To me, its not the way to go - they have made a great decision keeping with a 2 film version of The Hobbit. Leave the bridge out - the Hobbit spans into LOTR seamlessly - and I think that more important.

Now whats for breakfast.

Cheers Elven x Swishtail.

Tolkien was a Capricorn!! Russell Crowe for Beorn!!Avatar: Liberace - The other Lord of the Rings.

Quote of The Week: The thing is I always write in the morning, and I know that if I go to the Net I won’t write ... you can start in the most scholarly website and end up at Paris Hilton dot com .. GdT

Three volumes of LotR, and one Hobbit. There's some tantalizing material in the LotR Appendices, but not really any more coherent stories. Anything else would have to be largely invented. Serious Tolkien fans would not appreciate that, any more than Harry Potter fans would flock to more films after the next two, which are based on the last book of the series.

The only material from Tolkien's writings that will remain after the two Hobbit films is found in writings such as The Silmarillion and The Children of Hurin; these aren't licenses for filming, and the Tolkien Estate has clearly expressed the belief that they are not appropriate material for films, so that situation is unlikely to change in the forseeable future. The Rohirrim, by Peter Xavier Price Elizabeth is the TORnsib formerly known as 'erather'

You could be right that serious Tolkien fans would not appreciate that,
[In reply to]

Can't Post

but what about the mainstream fans? I think they are a vast majority, and they might feel the story will be incomplete if the gap between The Hobbit 2 and The Fellowship of the Ring is not filmed. Besides, the appendices will give them enough material to shoot the bridgefilm. I found this link about the appendices:

Besides, the appendices will give them enough material to shoot the bridgefilm

For the most part, the LOTR appendices are histories not stories in the sense of the main text. And most of what actual stories appear there does not cover the period of time between The Hobbit and LOTR -- the filmmakers largely would be making it up: creating an entire movie out of a few thousand words of text. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> We're discussing The Silmarillion in the Reading Room, Aug. 9 - Mar 7. Please join the conversation!

Besides, the appendices will give them enough material to shoot the bridgefilm

For the most part, the LOTR appendices are histories not stories in the sense of the main text. And most of what actual stories appear there does not cover the period of time between The Hobbit and LOTR -- the filmmakers largely would be making it up: creating an entire movie out of a few thousand words of text.

I think that is exactly what the filmmakers discovered when they actually sat down to start thinking about scripting the two films.

They could, perhaps, make an interesting film by focusing on a particular episode in the history detailed in the appendicies (for instance, the kin-slaying in Gondor), but (a) it certainly wouldn't be a bridge film; and (b) they would have to make most of it up. 'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'

I know for Tolkien-fans it's very important that a bridgemovie must not be made up, but must stay true to the books,
[In reply to]

Can't Post

But is that really important? After all it is a FANTASY-movie, and completing the story is also worth something, or not? Enjoy it, don't take it too seriously. I guess I will provoke now a lot of reactions, but I felt I HAD to post this. Besides, they can take the appendices as a guideline, and they can hold on to the fact there must be a logical storyline to go from The Hobbit 2 towards The Fellowship. So, it's not entirely a "riddle in the dark." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCUzA6KMEw http://www.ladyofrohan.com/funeralsong.wav